The funny thing is that if they had released Solo this winter instead of when they did, I feel like there wouldn't be all this consternation on the Disney side. I could be wrong.

Also, I don't want to come across as rude, but could we please leave TLJ analysis in that thread? I am probably guilty of talking about it in here myself and I do apologize if I did so.

Quality issues of TLJ aside (I do like the movie, it just could have been better), I've been very happy, overall with Disney's handling of the Star Wars franchise.

Solo being released 5 months after TLJ was stupid, I think most of us agree with that. The internet controversies surrounding TLJ would have died down and the movie could have stood on it's own (which would have been a good thing - not a great thing, but a good thing).

My personal feeling was that they should have been doing a Star Wars movie every other year. A "Trilogy" movie every other release, and standalone, "Star Wars Stories" movies filling in the other slots.

Disney and Kennedy got overly ambitious. And Kennedy didn't push for a more comprehensive, (better) map/outline for the current trilogy for all of the directors & writers to follow.

Yeah, I do think we have to fault Kennedy for apparently not having some idea of where to take the Sequel Trilogy. The idea that basically the baton was to be handed from director to director to director and essentially leaving them to work with what came before or just completely disregard it is kinda dumb.

This is absolutely right.

And it’s a lesson they could have easily learned from looking at the OT and PT and the pitfalls of not having a fully mapped out narrative.

I think pushing Solo to December would've helped, but the only way this was going to be successful was to digitally deage Ford or invent a time machine. I thought Solo was entertaining fluff, and the kid playing Solo was OK, but Han Solo IS Harrison Ford. People weren't going to accept less. It's such an iconic performance and character, if you insisted on making this film the mistake was NOT casting someone doing an impersonation (Ingruber), and going the route of someone "doing the essence of the character"... whatever the fuck that means... Now young Obi Wan worked because 1) he wasn't a huge character in the entirety of the OT and 2) the introduction and use of a younger Obi Wan was more organic. It didn't help Solo that this story was also, what, 10? years before ANH. Maybe if it was 20 years before, but then again that opens up a whole other can of worms.

As much as I love Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the last thing I wanted to see was either someone doing an impersonation of him (because I would have spent the whole time thinking 'that's an impersonation of Harrison Ford') or a de-aged Ford (because I would have spent the whole time thinking 'that's a de-aged Harrison Ford'). So I give Kennedy and anyone else involved mad props for not doing either of those things.

River Phoenix played him in the Last Crusade and everyone seemed okay with it. In fact, that's one of my favorite parts of that movie. Or hell, the entire Young Indiana Jones series worked fine. The idea that different actors can't play younger versions of other actors is silly.

I think Solo is underrated and I don’t really think Alden Ehrenreich was the problem. I actually thought he was better doing his own thing rather than Donald Glover doing a straight up impersonation.

To me having a different actor as Han I wanted him to put a bit of his own mark on the character rather than pretending to be Harrison Ford, because Harrison Ford is one of the most iconic actors of all time and no one is going to exactly match up to him. It’s also silly that some people were upset that Ford didn’t play the character in my opinion. I don’t know that the technology is there to have a full film done with the de-aging technology and even if it is who knows how expensive it would be.

The release date hurt that film more than anything in my opinion. They released it in a month where way too much was out for it to compete with. They should have released it closer to the holiday season to give the franchise a bit of breathing room between films. I think it’s showing that Star Wars may not be a franchise to pump out film after film with and always expect success. If too many come out it loses some of what makes it special.

^^ Agree...I think Solo is better than Rogue One and TLJ. Having rewatched all three recently, it stands up better than either of those.

I do think TFA is much better than all of them so I have hopes JJ can wrap the ending of the trilogy up nicely...

I really like Rogue One a lot actually and just watched it again on Friday night. To me it really feels like a connecting piece that bridges a gap between the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy. I actually wouldn’t mind more stories set in that time period. Specifically showing the remaining Jedi being hunted down by Vader.

Vader: A Star Wars story of 2 hours of him hunting down Jedi would be amazing.

Yeah, a Vader movie seems like the most logical choice for a stand alone anthology type film if you ask me. I’m quite surprised there hasn’t been more talk of one as I think that would rake in big money. That time period between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope would be interesting to explore. Hunting down the remaining Jedi and showcasing him at his most badass (more of what we saw at the end of Rogue One type stuff), there’s a lot there that I feel writes itself.

I also still think an Obi-Wan movie has potential. It’s a bit of a shame if Disney let’s the failure of Solo discourage them from doing more stand alone films because I do think certain existing characters have potential for some interesting stories to be told.

I know we've talked about the release date of Solo a good amount already, but I still think that if people are hyped about a movie they'll find time to see it. It might have done a little better in December, but not significantly enough to suddenly make it a box office hit.

I do like the idea of Disney/LucasFilm continuing to make more of these, just at a lower budget and knowing that it's ok to have a $200 million dollar box office movie between the bigger episodes.

Loved the idea of McGregor doing an Obiwan movie but when I thought about it, the movie would have to be small in scope as to not screw up anything already established in the timeline. and if that's the case, what's the point. Obiwan in some "Loganesque" small story wouldn't make sense as he's too powerful to have any low level villain as a real threat.

This is exactly it and my one and only (but huge) issue with her and the rest of Lucasfilm. It doesn't negate any of her history and it doesn't make her a terrible producer but it does show that there is some kind of disconnect with her and Star Wars. But apparently Disney doesn't think so so more power to her.

I think the Boba Fett movie would have been the best choice for an anthology movie. That way there isn't much of an issue with getting an actor that looks and acts like the original. And it has enough OT original pull to resonate with the Star Wars fans while opening up the universe to new and totally different aspects of the franchise.

I thought the original plan was for JJ to give them an outline of the entire thing but then he decided he wasn't going to do VIII and they seemed to throw everything out and go with the director to director model. Although in that model I'm not sure what Trevorrow was expected to bring to the table.

I don’t remember the specifics. Either way though as the president of Lucasfilm and the one in control of the Star Wars franchise I think Kennedy should have been responsible to have tasked someone with making sure there was some semblance of a narrative direction on where the sequels needed to go. That just seems like common sense. Especially in an era when there are so many great trilogies being made and the MCU being the biggest franchise currently going there’s just no reason the sequels and the Star Wars franchise as a whole really should come across so uneven and a bit disorganized.

I don't think this is true. There's like LOTR from over a decade ago and.... that's it really.

Marvel has had success with loose continuity, but the first time they tried even a two-part story is with Avengers: Infinity War, and we haven't even seen part 2 yet.

Nobody else has planned out a film trilogy with an original story. We've had a lot of adaptations of an existing book series, but even those are a mixed bag.

I guess I should have said franchise films as well as trilogies. I would count The Lord of the Rings trilogy personally even though it’s a bit older. Nolan’s Batman Trilogy and Matt Reeves’ Apes trilogy are both good examples. I would also say that the Captain America trilogy is pretty strong overall but it kind of lumps in with the MCU. Also not necessarily franchise films in the same vein as something like Star Wars but Toy Story has spanned a long time and is one I’d count. Same with something like Linklater’s Before trilogy.

But studios have definitely figured out franchises more too. The MCU films for sure have set the bar. There’s franchises like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and Mission: Impossible as recent examples of pretty consistent franchises.

To Jay G's point, some of those franchises weren't planned out or had source material to follow. LOTR, Harry Potter, and Hunger Games had books to follow. Mission: Impossible seems to make it up as they go. Toy Story, as far as I can tell, has only moved forward with sequels when they felt they had the right idea come along. Even Nolan's trilogy I recall some hesitation with The Dark Knight Rises and wanting to find a good story to tell before moving forward with that movie.

I agree with you that Star Wars, as far as the main Episodes go, should have had a clearer outline and direction though. I think more franchises should, especially the established ones.

Neither of those were planned in advance, and I'm not sure why it's "Matt Reeves’ Apes trilogy" when he wasn't involved in the first one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_o...et_of_the_Apes

It's also tricky because they're "trilogies," but also part of much larger franchises (Batman, Planet of the Apes). Also, each of those films are more or less standalone, or at least tell a complete story on their own, without cliffhangers. The "Dark Knight Trilogy" could've easily ended after two films, or one. And the Planet of the Apes films may grow to 4 or more films:
https://www.fandango.com/movie-news/...-movies-752445

Also, I wouldn't count the Captain America films as a "trilogy," as they're part of the larger MCU.

Toy Story 4 is in the works, so not a trilogy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_4

That series started in 1995, with 9 year gaps between films, weren't planned in advance, and could've ended at any point. Plus, there's a possible 4th film.
https://ew.com/movies/2017/02/27/ric...unset-trilogy/

Harry Potter and Hunger Games were films based on existing books, so there was a clear roadmap before the films were started. the MI films are standalone and largely episodic with only a loose continuity. I think the latest was the first time Ethan Hunt had the same boss for more than one film. Also: different directors and styles for each film (until the latest).


I thought that, due to your comments about Star Wars continuity and needing to be planned out in advance, you were referencing serialized trilogies that had done those things. The only serialized film franchises that planned out a film trilogy in advance are LOTR and The Hobbit, and even those had a book as a guide. There's not really a plethora of recent "film trilogies" that fit what Star Wars tries to do. You mainly cited film franchises that weren't planned in advanced, and are largely accidentally, or even just temporarily, three films.

Edit: Added The Hobbit, which I often forget about.

Fair point about some of those having reference material. I didn’t necessarily mean trilogies or franchises that are serialized or planned out necessarily but more that feel in line with each other from film to film and don’t disregard aspects of what came before. I just feel like with more quality franchise films being produced that something like Star Wars should up its game and be as good or better. I also feel like Star Wars should be more serialized. At least for the main episodic entries.

Movies aren’t really made with “trilogies” in mind, and it’s a fairly new thing as well.

The bottom line is that movies are an expensive undertaking, so nobody really wants to bankroll a “trilogy” or other extended cinematic project. If your first movie bombs, then you’re pretty much fucked on the next two you’re making.

The traditional model is that you make a movie. If it’s successful, then you make a sequel. And if that’s successful, you make another.

The exception is with things like Tolkien and Harry Potter, where the guys with the money are willing to take a risk on material that has been phenomenally successful in another medium. Think of it like this... would you want to invest a billion dollars on a Jupiter Ascending trilogy?

And, I think this is one of the big issues with how Kennedy is running Star Wars. She’s Making movies in the traditional sequel mode. She’s making Mission Impossible 8 instead of Star Wars Episode VIII and a lot of the hardcore fans are wanting something epic, more in the mold of Tolkien or “A Song of Ice and Fire.” It just feels like Lucasfilm wants to churn out sequels, when many of us are expecting a rich universe with its own mythology and sense of history. A lot of people have grown up with the expansive EU, and know the names, history, and species of every goddamned creature in the Cantina, and it just feels like Lucasfilm is being run by someone who just wants to hand out movie contracts to her friends and let them do anything they want to. It’s seems like it’s being run in the complete opposite of the way that Feige is running the MCU. Star Wars is already a proven brand, and Disney can afford to do some pre-planning with it.

Well said. And we've had this argument before but just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean that they couldn't have foreseen it and planned out a basic plot map for this trilogy. They already knew they were making 3 of them and they would feature the same characters and no one thought it might be a good idea to plan that out?